[Curtman]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

Everyone except 'The Weed Guy' was kinda irritating. The Weed Guy was very well respectful and had real arguments.

Oh this is bad for me to knoooow.

I know what you mean.. In comparison, Michael Geist seems relatively tame.. No?

[DrCaleb]

Bodah Bodah:

bootlegga bootlegga:

It's only theft if I try and profit from it IMO. If I download a movie/song/e-book and sell it, then I can see their (industry/government) point.

That's like saying shoplifting isn't really a crime unless you try sell the stacks of CD's from HMV you've lifted

Believe or not most artists would like to get paid for thier work. That's how they feed themselves hence make more art for you to enjoy.

Don't be a cheap ass go buy your art and not steal it.

You and Ruez seem to have a one track mind on this. What does; your cell phone, the ECU of your car, your Blu-Ray player, your laptop, your computer - all have to do with art? Nothing. Art can be enjoyed without digital locks - and nothing is taken from anyone, but all of those other things can have digital locks put on them - and it will be illegal for you to remove the locks or even make a device to remove the locks.

That is the point. The media companies scream that they need these provisions of C32 to 'protect their profits' but their own books show they have suffered no losses to account for their attitude. It's another money grab, made into law. And the side effect will be that you are no longer able to use your property how you see fit.

[bootlegga]

Bodah Bodah:

bootlegga bootlegga:

It's only theft if I try and profit from it IMO. If I download a movie/song/e-book and sell it, then I can see their (industry/government) point.

That's like saying shoplifting isn't really a crime unless you try sell the stacks of CD's from HMV you've lifted

Believe or not most artists would like to get paid for thier work. That's how they feed themselves hence make more art for you to enjoy.

Don't be a cheap ass go buy your art and not steal it.

You avoided my question I see. No big surprise there, I guess.

Downloading and shoplifting are two very different things. Artists do get paid for their work. My point is there's no reason for them to be paid two or three times (or more) for the same thing. Sometimes I buy stuff and loan it to people, and other times I borrow it.

It's not like I'm showing it on a big screen in my yard and charging admission. Now, that would be theft. Me watching an old movie that someone else paid for isn't stealing IMO.

Does Ford expect a cut when you sell your old car (or loan it to a friend)? Of course not. Why are movies and music somehow different?

[Scape]

Bodah Bodah:

bootlegga bootlegga:

It's only theft if I try and profit from it IMO. If I download a movie/song/e-book and sell it, then I can see their (industry/government) point.

That's like saying shoplifting isn't really a crime unless you try sell the stacks of CD's from HMV you've lifted

Believe or not most artists would like to get paid for thier work. That's how they feed themselves hence make more art for you to enjoy.

Don't be a cheap ass go buy your art and not steal it.

How many rental stores closed up shop this year?

Movie Gallery Canada is closing 131 of its video-rental stores and selling off $33 million of inventory, the companies handling the liquidation announced Friday.

Rentals, CD/DVD are a dying medium. Legislation is not going to resurrect it. This is a hail mary by the industry to exert pressure on the political process while they still have some clout left. So they can keep the window of profitability open as long as possible and post pone their own industries demise.

The fact is digital locks is backing the wrong horse and should not have even been tabled or at least had a sun set clause attached to it because this simply is an unsustainable premise. We can't bring back jobs to the movie industry peddling obsolete and unwanted media. That is an affront to the very principals of a free market. On demand digital direct media is the future of consumption and digital locks obstructs it.

So what if someone steals a boatload of VCR tapes of movies anymore? I has limited value now and no future. As citizens we should be able to use what we buy how we want to without restrictions.

[Bodah]

bootlegga bootlegga:

You avoided my question I see. No big surprise there, I guess.

$1:

No I wasn't I thought it was a dumb arguement not worth replying to, but I'll play.

bootlegga bootlegga:

How many movies, books or CDs have you borrowed from friends? Or the public library? Or have taped off of your TV with a VCR/PVR/DVD recorder? Is any of that stealing? It isn't to me, so if I wind up getting a copy of a DVD from my brother or a friend living in Japan, why is it any different?

Because I'm sure your not related to the overwhelming majority of account holders of using file sharing software. You're just exhcanging stolen loot from fellow thieves.

[Curtman]

Bodah Bodah:

Because I'm sure your not related to the overwhelming majority of account holders of using file sharing software. You're just exhcanging stolen loot from fellow thieves.

It's got nothing to do with file sharing software. File sharing isn't a circumvention device. It's what happens after the circumvention has happened once, somewhere in the world, who shares the unlocked file with everyone else who no longer needs to circumvent anything.

[Zipperfish]

Scape Scape:

How many rental stores closed up shop this year?

Movie Gallery Canada is closing 131 of its video-rental stores and selling off $33 million of inventory, the companies handling the liquidation announced Friday.

Rentals, CD/DVD are a dying medium. Legislation is not going to resurrect it. This is a hail mary by the industry to exert pressure on the political process while they still have some clout left. So they can keep the window of profitability open as long as possible and post pone their own industries demise.

The fact is digital locks is backing the wrong horse and should not have even been tabled or at least had a sun set clause attached to it because this simply is an unsustainable premise. We can't bring back jobs to the movie industry peddling obsolete and unwanted media. That is an affront to the very principals of a free market. On demand digital direct media is the future of consumption and digital locks obstructs it.

So what if someone steals a boatload of VCR tapes of movies anymore? I has limited value now and no future. As citizens we should be able to use what we buy how we want to without restrictions.

The inevitable end, the way I see it, is policing the servers. It's pointyless going afgter downloaders because there are two many of them and their risk/reward quoient is very low (risk=almost zero; reward=free stuff). In the future, you simply won't be able to go online and download illegally with impunity any more, becasue you'll be watched.

[BigKeithO]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The inevitable end, the way I see it, is policing the servers. It's pointyless going afgter downloaders because there are two many of them and their risk/reward quoient is very low (risk=almost zero; reward=free stuff). In the future, you simply won't be able to go online and download illegally with impunity any more, becasue you'll be watched.

What does this have to do with digital locks? You are already watched online if you are downloading from P2P. Have you heard of the US Copyright Group or whatever it is called? They just sued 10,000 people in the US for downloading the movie Far Cry and The Hurt Locker by "watching" them online. It is in human nature to share, P2P is not going away no matter how many laws get passed or how many studios/artists cry foul. All that will happen is more and more people will start to use VPN and encryption until eventually the "watching" becomes impossible.

Content industries need to wake up and realize that P2P represents a consumer want or need, their job should be to fill that need. They are in a panic because a digital file does not produce the same sort of revenue as a DVD or CD, they want to force consumers to purchase shiny discs for as long as possible.

That being said this entire thread is about the public and interest groups concern over the digital lock provision. The government is giving the public more rights enshrined in law, yet at the same time they are taking them all away with the digital lock provision. This isn't about getting "something for free" off of the internet this is about balancing copyright more in the consumers favor.

C-32 makes using P2P software to illegally download copyrighted material illegal. The digital locks provision doesn't make it anymore illegal than it already is, the only thing it does is take away yours and mine rights to do as we wish (within the scope of the law, I'm not talking about uploading a DVD to the Pirate Bay) with legitimately purchased goods.

[uwish]

Curtman Curtman:

I guess when your the heritage minister, everyone is a radical extremist. Even Professor Michael Geist.

That isn't new, governments use that all the time

[Zipperfish]

BigKeithO BigKeithO:

What does this have to do with digital locks?

Nothing. I just like to interject mindless comments into conversations.

$1:

You are already watched online if you are downloading from P2P. Have you heard of the US Copyright Group or whatever it is called? They just sued 10,000 people in the US for downloading the movie Far Cry and The Hurt Locker by "watching" them online. It is in human nature to share, P2P is not going away no matter how many laws get passed or how many studios/artists cry foul. All that will happen is more and more people will start to use VPN and encryption until eventually the "watching" becomes impossible.

I wouldn't underestimate the lengths an industry will go to to prevent its inventory being stolen.

I'm not talking about private entities monitoring servers, I'm talking about enforcement agencies doing it. Eventually--whether its kiddy porn on the net, or file sharing, or rampant malware--the government will be unable to resist the temptation to wade in and control. They will do this to keep us "safe." Anarchy on the net will not last forever; enjoy it while it lasts!

$1:

Content industries need to wake up and realize that P2P represents a consumer want or need, their job should be to fill that need. They are in a panic because a digital file does not produce the same sort of revenue as a DVD or CD, they want to force consumers to purchase shiny discs for as long as possible.

Well, let's be fair it's not that illegal downloads do not produce the "same sort oif revenue"; they don't produce any revenue. And for that, I can't blame them for being concerned.

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

$1:

Content industries need to wake up and realize that P2P represents a consumer want or need, their job should be to fill that need. They are in a panic because a digital file does not produce the same sort of revenue as a DVD or CD, they want to force consumers to purchase shiny discs for as long as possible.

Well, let's be fair it's not that illegal downloads do not produce the "same sort oif revenue"; they don't produce any revenue. And for that, I can't blame them for being concerned.

It was revenue they weren't going to get anyway.

Instead, you'd legislate them an artificial market shortage? P2P pirates cause you and I to be beholden to car companies because the digital locks on our cars computers (the password being '12345') are illegal to circumvent? So Maw and Paw's fix-it and grill goes out of business because only a stealership can read the contents of the diagnostic computer.

We can only play 'official' music from Bell on our Bell phone, and we have to buy it all again when we move carriers to Telus, because we aren't allowed to enjoy the music we bought from one on the other?

How does any of that make sense? The 'free' market is saying 'we want a certain level of service', so the government legislates what level of service the service providers will give us. I think there is a word for that kind of government. Begins with an 'f'.

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It was revenue they weren't going to get anyway.

Instead, you'd legislate them an artificial market shortage? P2P pirates cause you and I to be beholden to car companies because the digital locks on our cars computers (the password being '12345') are illegal to circumvent? So Maw and Paw's fix-it and grill goes out of business because only a stealership can read the contents of the diagnostic computer.

We can only play 'official' music from Bell on our Bell phone, and we have to buy it all again when we move carriers to Telus, because we aren't allowed to enjoy the music we bought from one on the other?

How does any of that make sense? The 'free' market is saying 'we want a certain level of service', so the government legislates what level of service the service providers will give us. I think there is a word for that kind of government. Begins with an 'f'.

f for fail?

I don't have an answer, to tell you the truth. I certainly don't think much of the Conservatvie's ham-handed, anti-technology approach.

My main concern (having been one) is small independent artists trying to eke a living out of playing music. It's tough enough already being on the road. Now that their product is free, it's even tougher.

[Bodah]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

My main concern (having been one) is small independent artists trying to eke a living out of playing music. It's tough enough already being on the road. Now that their product is free, it's even tougher.

[Curtman]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't have an answer, to tell you the truth. I certainly don't think much of the Conservatvie's ham-handed, anti-technology approach.

We can't even blame the Cons for this one. The Liberals tried to do the same thing.

[RUEZ]

bootlegga bootlegga:

My point is there's no reason for them to be paid two or three times (or more) for the same thing. Sometimes I buy stuff and loan it to people, and other times I borrow it.

It's not like I'm showing it on a big screen in my yard and charging admission. Now, that would be theft. Me watching an old movie that someone else paid for isn't stealing IMO.

Does Ford expect a cut when you sell your old car (or loan it to a friend)? Of course not. Why are movies and music somehow different?

Borrowing something off a friend has never been considered stealing. It's been bought and paid for. However if you make a copy of said friends movie or music, you are now stealing. I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand. The minute you start making an unauthorized and unlicensed copy you are stealing.